Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Those are not "self-validation reports". BLP is not doing the validation. Outside parties are doing the validations.

If you had an energy generator and you were visited by a dozen outside people with physics and engineering doctorates from various places, and they made reports validating the results, yes, I would say your energy generator was validated. Meaning, I would have relatively strong confidence that the results reported accurately reflect the experiments conducted.

It should be understood that where a relatively complicated apparatus is involved it only makes sense that validators should visit the premises. But when the setup is more generic and can be accomplished at a good lab, it makes sense that outside people can do the experiments themselves in their own, outside labs.

markie empathizes his and Mills dependence on "validation report" idiocy

Originally Posted by markie

There were more, ...

markie empathizes his and Mills dependence on "validation report" idiocy.

One last time:
These are reports on the BLP web site that Mills may be edited for his own purposes.
Most of these reports were supervision of BLP personal running BLP experiments on BLP equipment at BLP giving the possibility of fraud.
Some of the reports have experiments run at outside labs.
One of the reports, markie lies about.

Dr. Glumac does not list any replication of results.
Dr. Glumac does an analysis of 5 samples from unstated sources. Dr. Glumac does not list any analysis of the samples to check that they are what they say they are. Dr. Glumac reports exothermic peaks in the reactions and that the measured values were "far more exothermic than the predicted thermochemistry".

Dr. Crouse falls completely for Mills' obvious hydrino delusion which makes the report dubious.
Work done while Dr. Crouse was an Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering.
The stupidity of citing Mills crank book (a 2011 edition).
The stupidity of citing H. A. Haus "On the radiation from point charges" when Mills' hydrino delusion has no point charges !
Fantasies from Dr. Crouse or more probably Mills editing. Replicating the "results" in a company PDF (reference [3] )is not evidence for hydrino delusions. That would be empirical evidence that cannot be explained any other way, e.g. a unique spectrum.

i've already told you that subsequent experiments on much more capable spectrometers demonstrated that the results on the earlier spectrometers were not artifacts.

markie lies about much more capable spectrometers and artifacts.

It is a fact that the results on the earlier spectrometers were artifacts because the results were outside of the manufacturers range for valid measurements. The results could not be valid measurements. That makes them artifacts by definition !
Mills getting similar results with later spectrometers is more a suggestion that Mills is lying.

That is 9 years ago and Mills has not sold a working power plant to anyone despite promises to deliver by 2013.

Work around 2008 would have been with the solid powder, Raney Nickel type of reaction, producing short bursts of thermal output. Rowan University backed this up. It was my least favourite type of reaction because I never saw any evidence that the powder could be readily and quickly reprocessed in a batch cycle such that it could keep producing heat.

Work around 2012 would have been with the CIHT cell, a very different type of process. This produced electricity directly, akin to a fuel cell but with molten salts. This was much better but required much overhead and had too low power density.

It takes someone like a Dr. Ramanujachary from Rowan University, who is much more versed about hydrino ....

A delusion about Dr. Ramanujachary and hydrinos from markie.

Dr. Ramanujachary has never published anything on hydrinos other than "validation report(s)" on the BLP web site. He does not list hydrinos as a research interest.

I suspect that posters in this thread are more versed on hydrinos than Dr. Ramanujachary ! We have read the full extent of Mills hydrino insanity in his book. Just stating that there may be states below the ground state is actually superficially credible. It is Mills' additions that make this into deluded fantasies, e.g. catalysts, a bound election as an atomic sized sphere, applying nonradiation conditions for point charges, cherry picking QM effects like quantized spin, etc.

markie writes a delusion of "hundreds of spectrographs" when we have only seen a handful of spectrographs from outside labs.

The really ignorant delusion is that Mills spectrographs have not been already debunked as in at least 1 paper already in the thread .

If you've only seen a handful you have not been looking hard enough. Through the years there have been literally hundreds published in various papers.
The 2018 4th quarter technical report list the types of spectroscopies to identify hydrino product, which have been used for years:

Then you simply can't "confirm" that they were independent nor "deny" that their disclosures were perhaps dependent on some agreement.

LOL

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

Through the years there have been literally hundreds published in various papers..

That remains a delusion, markie. There are "literally hundreds" of spectra published in papers for Mills hydrino delusions in papers by Mills, not from "a dozen different labs". That includes his decades? of stupidity of abusing spectrometers.

A citation of a BLP "technical report" from the documented liar Mills and no spectra from any of that "dozen different labs" .

Classical nonradiation conditions define the conditions according to classical electromagnetism under which a distribution of accelerating charges will not emit electromagnetic radiation. According to the Larmor formula in classical electromagnetism, a single point charge under acceleration will emit electromagnetic radiation, i.e. light. In some classical electron models a distribution of charges can however be accelerated so that no radiation is emitted.[1] The modern derivation of these nonradiation conditions by Hermann A. Haus is based on the Fourier components of the current produced by a moving point charge. It states that a distribution of accelerated charges will radiate if and only if it has Fourier components synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light.[2]

That remains a delusion, markie. There are "literally hundreds" of spectra published in papers for Mills hydrino delusions in papers by Mills, not from "a dozen different labs". That includes his decades? of stupidity of abusing spectrometers.

A citation of a BLP "technical report" from the documented liar Mills and no spectra from any of that "dozen different labs" .

If you had read even some of those papers you would know that often work was sent off to external labs to do the testing because BLP only had so much equipment, especially in the early days.

That stupidity is part of why Mills' theory is invalid as I have written many times before. Mills does not have a distribution of moving point charges! Mills explicitly applies the Haus result for a distribution of moving point charges to his hydrino delusion with a continuous charge distribution!

If you had read even some of those papers you would know that often work was sent off to external labs to do the testing because BLP only had so much equipment, especially in the early days.

What is your point here? No one is claiming it's a problem that he contracted work out. The problem is that people like you try to imply those labs validated the results. They didn't. They just ran the equipment.

__________________REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Work around 2008 would have been with the solid powder, Raney Nickel type of reaction, producing short bursts of thermal output. Rowan University backed this up. It was my least favourite type of reaction because I never saw any evidence that the powder could be readily and quickly reprocessed in a batch cycle such that it could keep producing heat.

Work around 2012 would have been with the CIHT cell, a very different type of process. This produced electricity directly, akin to a fuel cell but with molten salts. This was much better but required much overhead and had too low power density.

The SunCell is easily so much better that either of those approaches.

But come, say, 2023, when Mills has reset to another wholly new 'approach', you'll be replacing that last one-sentence paragraph with, "Work around 2018 would have been using the Suncell, which just didn't meet efficiency requirements. This Gargleblaster 3000 is so much better than any of those earlier approaches."

Ond on and on, round the mulberry bush we go.

Back then, with those other 'approaches', the world was told we'd have commercial generators "any day now." But not so then, not so today, and not so tomorrow.

If you've only seen a handful you have not been looking hard enough. Through the years there have been literally hundreds published in various papers.
The 2018 4th quarter technical report list the types of spectroscopies to identify hydrino product, which have been used for years:

The fact that the new data matches the data generated by devices incapable of recording said data is a major red flag that the data is being cooked.

The fact that the new data is consistent with the old data is evidence of fraud, not evidence that any of it is accurate.

__________________Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

I'm thinking of getting an MVHR system in my next house, but I'll need a source of hot air. Mills may be able to help with that.

Meanwhile, markie is still expecting a marketable product, just not this year. Or, indeed, any year that starts with a number.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

The fact that the new data matches the data generated by devices incapable of recording said data is a major red flag that the data is being cooked.

The fact that the new data is consistent with the old data is evidence of fraud, not evidence that any of it is accurate.

This is a fact that needs to be highlighted, again and again until he gets it.

It's akin to the "Architects&Engineer's for 9/11 Truth" shtick, in which these "professionals" produced "evidence" that showed that essentially every "theory" originally posited by the non-professionals just turned out to be completely right! Wow, what were the odds?

When real scientists doing real science find out that their equipment wasn't working the way they thought it was, they tend to end up with different results after they fix the problem.

__________________Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

The comments about invalid spectral analyser results might or might not be valid. If the manufacturer has published data showing that the device has zero sensitivity in a particular range, that is one thing. But if the manufacturer merely states that he has only calibrated or validated the device for a specific range, then that statement would not mean the same.
Unfortunately, I can not easily find out, and can not spare the time for a search. Does anyone know the maker and model of the instrument in question?

The comments about invalid spectral analyser results might or might not be valid. If the manufacturer has published data showing that the device has zero sensitivity in a particular range, that is one thing. But if the manufacturer merely states that he has only calibrated or validated the device for a specific range, then that statement would not mean the same.
Unfortunately, I can not easily find out, and can not spare the time for a search. Does anyone know the maker and model of the instrument in question?

Using an instrument outside of it's calibrated range would yield invalid results.

You could not use those results for anything above backyard discussions over a beer.

Any scientist would know that, and not bother wasting time and money doing such tests.

If my rifle scope is sighted in at 100 yards, then missing a target at 300 yards when the cross-hairs were dead on does NOT indicate the target is immune to bullets.

Right. In layman's terms. Not in scientific terms. In science the results Mills got where completely meaningless. You should now see why scientists scoff at Mill's. That and of course the fact that Hydrinos don't exist.

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

Right. In layman's terms. Not in scientific terms. In science the results Mills got where completely meaningless. You should now see why scientists scoff at Mill's. That and of course the fact that Hydrinos don't exist.

Now, now you don't know they don't exist.... it's just that we know Mills hasn't any!

Now, now you don't know they don't exist.... it's just that we know Mills hasn't any!

I know. Prove me wrong. If you can't, then I was correct all along.

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.